The Kulturkampf warriors over in the GOP have been asleep at the switch. How else to explain how they’ve missed this opportunity to bash the Dems?
I was refreshing my memory as to the location of state Democratic HQ, because I was going over in a few minutes to check out the big bombshell endorsement the Vincent Sheheen is scheduled to reveal. I knew I had driven past it a few times, but couldn’t quite place it.
So I looked up 1529 Hampton St. on Google Maps, and saw it was just a couple of blocks from where I am. Just to double-check, I went to street view (on of the wildest and weirdest technological phenomena of my lifetime). And there was the awning with the Democratic Party logo. That’s the place.
Then I noticed something I had never before noticed on a map search before. At the bottom of the window showing the location of the HQ was a little spam ad that announced:
Free Nasty Gay Porn – www.FreedomTube.org – See Free Hot XXX Movies Now The Freshest Videos – 100% Free
Whoa. That justaposition — this ad and Democratic Party HQ — seems to be something that the Tea Partiers would go to town on. I guess they’ve never looked up the Dems’ HQ.
Maybe it’s a hoax. I just know I’m not going to click on that link to find out.
Or else it was just random. Still, kind of weird.
You, of all people, should be wary of pointing out juxtaposed ads, no?
I repeated your search, and got the following ad:
Art Robinson for Congress
Pro-Science, Pro-Technology,
Pro-Free Enterprise, Pro-Energy
http://www.ArtRobinsonforCongress.com
I guess I go to different websites than you do. 😉
Brad,
“…seems to be something that the Tea Partiers would go to town on.”
You stepped way the hell over a line with me on this one. I have always respected your opinions and may not agree, but you had my respect. Now, it seems as if you will go to any length or use any excuse to cast dispersions on Tea Party supporters.
This is a CHEAP SHOT and I thought you were a better person. Apparently, you’re not. After this, I have to consider whether this blog has anything to offer me or not. If this is your idea of political discourse, spare me. And, I am not as gracious as Kathryn is. This is not a “wink and nod” moment.
Bart, that distresses me. Perhaps I’m not expressing myself well.
First, it’s a joke. I don’t actually think anyone’s going to attach importance to that juxtaposition.
So maybe the joke itself is in poor taste.
But once you accept that a joke is about to be made … how else would you express it? I mean, the gag is that the Dems would be vulnerable on this (and truth be told, I’ve sees the spin cycle go into overdrive over stuff not much more substantial than this). So, in the process of delivering that gag, who would you put in the role I facetiously propose. I mean, how would you complete “something that ______ (where “blank” is a constant critic of the Democrats) would go to town on?”
I chose “Tea Partiers” because they’re now, they’re happening, and because they’re big on expressing a sort of cultural enmity toward the Democratic Party and its affiliated interest groups. They’re about denouncing people with whom they disagree as “socialistic,” which in my book suggests “unAmerican.” Well, golly, what would be more likely to arouse such are than some sleazeball advertising “Free Nasty Gay Porn”?
So where did I go wrong? In making the joke at all (and the joke, for me is based in the fact that I see the parties shooting at each other over dumb Kulturkampf stuff all the time, and I’d rather laugh at it than rage against the machine)? Or in supposing that Tea Partiers would be offended at an ad for “Free Nasty Gay Porn?”
I guess I’m not seeing where the cheap shot is. I suppose that’s because I sort of thought I was making fun of everybody here, and that to some extent the satire was based in actual characteristics of these groups…
Maybe suggesting that the Tea Partyers would stoop that low? It is an awfully harsh joke at their expense…
I guess as far as joking goes, one need be careful about joking outside one’s in-group. You have taken offense at loose language aimed at your church, despite having aimed equally loose language, in jest, at another church.
or maybe Bart just took it the wrong way? I hope not. I enjoy Bart’s comments.
Maybe I haven’t been paying attention to the Tea Partiers enough but I thought they are mainly concerned with taxes and shrinking the size of government… I haven’t associated them with cultural issues.
So maybe you should have written, “seems to be something that Henry McMaster and Andre Bauer would go to town on…”
Maybe you’re right, Doug. Maybe I’m guilty of the same sloppiness in jesting that some people are guilty of in serious commentary — I’m thinking of that period, five or six years ago, when a lot of people on the left were indiscriminately calling people on the right “neocons,” as though “neocon” were synonymous with “conservative” or “Republican.” You’d hear obvious paleocons referred to as neocons, and so forth, expanding far beyond the original sense of the term.
So maybe I’m expanding the Tea Party movement — which I see as an ill-defined collection of emotions rather than a philosophy — to conflate with the right’s cultural conservatives. I think there’s some overlap, but you’re probably right that I was being imprecise.
Now Henry McMaster is a bit of a culture warrior — he led the charge on the gay-marriage thing a while back. But if I had made the joke about Henry, then Henry would with some justification take it personally, and it might be relevant for him to say “I would do no such thing,” and then we’d get into an argument that would make the whole joke not worth the trouble. Whereas when I refer to a large, amorphous movement, no one can legitimately claim that I’m picking on them. While we’re not talking libel here, I think some of the same logic applies: I had a professor teach me in media law that, as a rule of thumb, you can’t libel a group of people larger than 100, because there’s no way any member of that group can legitimately say that you were demonstrating malice toward HIM. Similarly, I think if you’re making a joke, and refer to something as large and shapeless as a current political movement, it’s hard to make the case that I’m on any one person’s case. And I would hate for anyone to think I WAS on that person’s case (or should I say “were?” — I’m not sure how this sentence works in terms of rules governing the subjunctive), unless of course I AM on that person’s case. And you’ll generally know when I am…
As for how it would be taken if I ascribed my facetious position to Andre Bauer… well, I’m not going to go there.
Oh, wow — if you follow that last link, you see that I headlined a previous post, in part, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that…” That is so lame. I mean, it was unoriginal to begin with, but to do it TWICE… oh, the shame…
Tea Partyers — aren’t they folks that paint Hitler moustaches on elected officials? Who scream that moderates are socialists? And now whingeing about “cheap shots”? I’d say that’s the pot calling the kettle black — except that Tea Partyers go ballistic about anything black.
In case no has been reading, listening to, or actively participating in the smear attempts, liberals and critics of the Tea Party movement have gone to great lengths to associate the supporters with a disgusting and deviant sex act. Then, your link to a gay sex website was the final straw. Even if you were “JOKING”, which I don’t buy, it was a bad joke and not one damn thing funny about it.
The smugness and appalling behavior of the so-called enlightened ones has been a catalyst for me to become more angry than at any time in my life when it comes to politics.
My wife, sister, and sister-in-law are supporters of the Tea Party and have been to a rally or two. Each of these exceptionally fine ladies, and I do mean ladies, do not deserve the crap, slander, and mean, vicious attacks coming from our liberal class.
I know many Tea Party members and they do not come close to the way they have been depicted by you Brad and others on this blog. However, to be fair, I do know one locally who is a member and organizer and I know the ***** is a racist. When the rally was announced in the paper and his name mentioned, I called the other organizers and expressed my objections to his participation and my concerns that he would take the opportunity to spew his garbage. I was assured it would not happen, and luckily, he kept his garbage mouth shut.
It has been great sport for you Brad to make snarky comments about the protesters and no, I do not take it as a joke. It appears to me that Sanford will be gone soon and you are in need of a new foil to go after. The Tea Party happens to be a convenient choice. The 100 analogy is lame at best and a poor one at worst. You are targeting the movement and by proxy, everyone involved in it.
You see complainers and bitchers, moaning about how bad they have it when they should be grateful. I see people who never before took time to participate in civic responsibility other than paying their taxes and voting on election day. People who are finding their voices and your liberal politicians and pundits don’t know what to make of it other than denigrate, attack, and make fun of them . These protesters may not know the issues down to the fine details because most of them still work and don’t have the time to devote to reading every line on every issue, word by word. Because of their life’s experience and strong compass of what they consider to be right and wrong, they understand from deep down, something is just not right and they don’t like it and they feel the need to publicly express themselves and are still learning. Is that wrong or just another opportunity to go after someone you disagree with?
Has bothered to stop and consider that some of the protesters could be their parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, family members and friends who are just damn good people and don’t deserve the ridicule you and some on this blog have heaped on them. Disgusting and despicable.
By the way, how many detractors of the Tea Party on this blog actually know a member(s) or supporter(s)? If you do, are they racist, ignorant, bitching, complaining, whining, knuckle draggers? Are they uneducated, unemployed, slackers who have never contributed anything useful to society in their entire lives?
Maybe you should check some statistics or demographics on the average Tea Party member/supporter. Overall, they are well educated, earn above average incomes, come from stable families, law abiding, and all of the other qualities that have been omitted from the constant attacks against the party and again by proxy, the members. Remember, no organization can exist without members and members are living, breathing human beings.
Am I pissed? Yes! Will I get over it? Maybe. But I will more effectively express myself at the voting booth come November along with the majority who disagree with what is going on in Washington on both sides of the aisle.
And one more thing. Why did you include the link to the porn site, gay or not, that anyone could click on be directed to it? This blog should be an example, not a vehicle to trash. The next time you try for a joke, do your homework and check your references or links out before listing them. Offensive is a mild description to say the least.
I made the mistake of clicking on the link to get a little more information, thinking it would take me to a page where other sites were listed, but unfortunately, that is not the case. It goes directly to the site with no warning of what is displayed. Luckily, I had not had my lunch yet, otherwise, you get the picture.
Well Bart, I am chastened. I meant no disrespect to your wife, sister or sister-in-law. God bless them for caring about politics.
Your complaint about the way these folks are being treated reminds me of something — it reminds me of the way the political classes (not just liberals but, perhaps to a greater extent, the country-club Republicans) reacted to the advent of Christian conservatives. Those folks swept into the GOP early in the 90s, and could be described the same way — people who had never cared about public policy before, but now that they were interested and charged up about it, everybody sneered at them and acted like they didn’t belong there.
And I sympathized with them. Frankly, between a committed Christian conservative and a traditional whitebread Republican, give me the evangelical every time. They are idealists; they believe in something more than the almighty dollar or who came over on the Mayflower.
I have always felt protective of, and sympathetic toward, the religious conservatives. And not just because I agree with them on a lot of things.
So far, I have not seen that with the Tea Parties. They seem to me to be rather nihilistic — sort of against everything — and I don’t respond well to that kind of negativism. Also, there’s this unsavory fact that they just happened to get REALLY ticked off enough to get involved right when Obama got elected. And given the crankiness, the whiteness, and the tendency toward the flying of Confederate flags at this event, that makes me very suspicious.
And no, I don’t know any Tea Partiers. I DO know activist religious conservatives, such as my friend Hal Stevenson, and that makes a lot of difference. I tend not to know Tea Partiers, I guess to some extent, because they are NOT people who have been involved in politics, and I tend to know the people who are.
But so far, I don’t see anything positive or promising in the movement. And I see a great deal of potential for harm, and for these people to be exploited. I’m particularly disturbed, for instance, to see someone like Nikki Haley pandering to them. I say that because — your wife and other kinfolk aside — there are some significant nativist strains in this movement, from what I’ve seen. And several years back, I strongly defended Nikki against just that kind of backlash — a backlash that in many ways is similar to the one aimed at Obama (talking about him as an alien, a socialist, a Muslim, what have you — the threatening OTHER). I see her trying to ride a wave of sentiment eerily similar to that which greeted her. And I guess she doesn’t see that. But I do.
There’s more than that one ***** racist you described attending those meetings. I’m sure there are many fine people who just want their concerns heard, but there’s a nastiness in the air as well, and it’s tainting the movement.
Now, all of that said, you must consider that I DO have a tendency toward one kind of snobbishness: As I’ve said before, I am a great admirer of John Adams, but NOT of his cousin Samuel. I think the shenanigans pulled by Samuel — including the famous Tea Party that started it all — were an INAPPROPRIATE way to express oneself politically. Destruction of property is destruction of property, and I don’t hold with it. The proper way to go about achieving our freedom was the way John Adams went about it, in the context of a respect for the rule of law.
In that regard, I suppose I am the most traditional form of conservative. I’ve been accused of being a Tory in this space. I’m not that; I’m just opposed to expressing political ideas by dressing up as Indians (in the hope that Indians would be blamed, which is cowardly) and throwing somebody else’s tea in the harbor.
And therefore I’m not likely to be prejudiced in favor of a movement that takes that event as its inspiration.
Oh, and thanks for the heads-up on the link. I just copied that directly — I was in a hurry to get done and get to the Sheheen announcement — and didn’t stop to “wash” out the coding by running it through Notepad the way I usually do.
It’s clean now.
Bart–I think we have a problem here all around with overgeneralizing. Some people are a certain way. Everyone is not.
Statistically Tea Party adherents are more educated and more white than the population at large. Slightly more than half agreed with some pretty racist sentiments along the lines of “Black people are less intelligent and less trustworthy.” That means that *almost half* did not.
I am a proud liberal, but I would sure hate to be tarred with the excesses of the sixties radicals who bombed things, or even were rude and disrespectful. They were new at political action, too.
Thanks to Bart, I’ve discovered there’s a deviant sexual connotation to tea partyers. I had to look it up. It’s known as “teabagging,” though, not teapartying. But whatever. It’s one of those things that, when you look it up, you’re sorry you did. Thanks Bart.
I know several tea party people. In some ways, they might be thought of a “good people.” But I find them also racist, homophobic, paranoid and illogical. I sincerely hope not all tea party people are that way.
One of them got really angry at me the other day. He said he was a “strict Constitutionalist” and that America should be operated strictly on the rules as laid down in the original Constitution. Oh, I said, so you don’t want the U.S. to have an Air Force? The Constitution establishes an army and a navy, but not an air force. This guy absolutely blew up. He said the militia would take care of people like me one day.
BTW, he’s an educator.
Satire is a very tricky thing. I think that some of your other off-beat musings may have been more successfully delivered. Not sure that I have ever thought of your news analysis and commentary as snarky, however. I tend to think of your postings as thoughtful and incisive, which is why I check in on what you have to say. I would say that the ideas of the Tea Party movement seem to me to be explicitly cultural and not simply economic or even “constitutional” at the core. We’ll see how that works out over time.
Tea Partying in South Carolina — as your own Pastor Stan Craig of Greenville declared at a SC tea party rally on tax day, he’s ready to “suit up, get my gun, go to Washington, and do what they trained me to do.”
The big cheers, though, were for speakers demanding that President Obama be sent back to his “homeland” of Kenya.
These are the sort of nasty assaults on American democracy that worry reasonable people about tea party members.
As for an orchestrated “smear campaign” to link tea partying to “deviant sex acts,” the only person I’ve ever heard make the connection is Bart. Maybe I’m not listening to enough right-wing radio.
The most useful thing to do here is not to snipe and snark, but stop and ask ourselves, “why are these people so angry? What can we do to clear up things?”
Us “elites” can poke fun, but if we’re really as smart as we are supposed to be, we ought to figure out how to address their concerns–some of them are misinformation, some are legitimate.
The thing I liked so much about Obama’s “race” speech during the campaign was that he acknowledged that many whites, particularly working class whites, had borne the impact of the racial reorganization of the past half century. If you were passed over for an “affirmative action” candidate in hiring or promotion who was not as well qualified as you, well, I might be upset, too, unless I had plenty of philosophical equanimity, or the sort having backup resources buys.
Kathryn,
A very good point. Sometimes people have the right to be angry and shouldn’t be labeled “racist” because of it.
One doesn’t have to look very hard to see real-life examples of cases where affirmative action goes too far. But we “angry white guys” apparently can’t say anything about it without being labeled as racist. Do some research on the hiring and firing practices of our local government and you might see why there are some very angry people out there in the real world. The threats of lawsuits have had a significant negative impact on performance. Incompetent people are retained and good people leave to escape the lunacy. I’ve seen it firsthand.
Absolutely nothing wrong with being angry with the government and protesting. But why weren’t they angry when the previous administration was bankrupting the country with an irresponsible war plan, suspending constitutional rights for Americans and larding positions of power with incompetent zealots?
Short answer, Burl? Maybe they’re warmongers like me.
But beyond that, I think a lot of them WERE angry about Bush stuff. They really got stirred up over TARP, even though a lot of them forget that happened on Bush’s watch. They were and are certainly ticked off over the comprehensive immigration reform that Bush and McCain and Graham pushed.
I’ve been thinking a lot about what Bart told us about his relatives. I’d really like to think that most of the Tea Party affiliates were not motivated by the race of the President. Maybe they are afraid because of the one-two punch of the near Depression followed by the anti-health care hysteria. I got rather seriously concerned during the end of the Bush administration, in the fall of 2008, about the state of the economy, and I am in a rather secure position. It seemed unprecedented in recent years–like since WW II.
What shook these people awake? Why are they only now getting involved?
I ask these questions in utmost sincerity.
I think the Vietnam War draft scared a lot of “hippie” generation activists, and Watergate was what turned me on.
Was it Joe the Plumber/Sarah Palin that made them stop and realize they were being screwed (which had been going on since at least the Bush tax cuts for the rich and the explosion in executive pay while real wages stagnated)? Why can they not see that Obama has their personal interests far more at heart than the Plutocracy of Republicans does? They ARE better educated than the population at large, so it isn’t as simple as “stupidity” or “ignorance.”
The Democrats and liberals in general have apparently done a piss poor job of getting the message across.
Kathryn just made me think (talk about man bites dog)…
She says she was politically awakened by Watergate, others by Vietnam. I guess still others by the civil rights movement…
… which leads me to a digression (which is more dog bits man)… No, I don’t think black folks voting for a guy because he’s black is as bad as white folks voting against a guy because he’s black.
Mind you, I think it’s pretty damned awful for black people to vote for a guy because he’s black. It’s the cause of a lot of bad stuff in our society. It’s what gives us an E.W. Cromartie for 27 years. It’s what enables a Marion Barry to make a comeback. Or at least, it’s part of it. Another part is black suspicion of the white system, which leads too many to think that “their guy” got in trouble because the Man had it in for him because he was black.
I detest identity politics. I’m hugely opposed to feminism because it’s ALL ABOUT identity politics (it’s in the name; it’s as though a black person invented a philosophy called “blackism”). Building a political viewpoint around one’s demographics is just a big turnoff to me. (Which feminists will say is a typical white guy oppressor trait, but consider the source.)
All of that said, and as bad as I think it is for a black person to support a black candidate BECAUSE he’s black, I think a white person opposing a candidate because he’s black is worse. Quite a bit worse. One is mere identification and projection, a mild extension of the ego — bad, but not pure evil. The other is racist, in the malignant sense.
And yes, there are shades of gray in between. There are white people who don’t vote for the black guy because they see him surrounded by only black people and therefore exploiting his blackness and they are turned off by that. Is that racist? No. It can arise from a sincere belief in color-blindness. A lot of liberals and black activists get FURIOUS when whites who advocate color-blindness quote MLK on the content of character vs. the color of skin, but the fact is that lots of white moderates and conservatives, and even some white liberals (the kind who really get ticked off over the way racial gerrymandering has exacerbated racial polarization in the country) believe sincerely in that approach….
Where was I — oh, yes… I don’t think I had such a moment of awakening. I sort of absorbed the 60s, but was not necessarily OF the 60s. I bought into civil rights, but was never quite what you’d call AGAINST the war in Vietnam. And I was already working at a newspaper when I first heard of Woodward and Bernstein.
My frame of reference is sort of WWII (which ended 8 years before I was born) and the role the US has played in the world since then.
So maybe my awakening is yet to come. And boy, when it does, get outta the way, folks…
@ Burl,
You’re welcome! Ain’t education a wonderful thing? Like you, I received one recently.
Stan Craig is not my pastor. I have no idea who the man is – and don’t want to know him.
Unlike some who will tolerate hatred and bigoted speech by a pastor from the pulpit or any other venue, if I were in a church service or had reason to come in contact with a minister or pastor who made comments like the ones Craig did, I would get up and walk out or walk away after letting him know how I felt. And it wouldn’t take 20 years.
Maybe you have never listened to Anderson Cooper. During an interview with David Gergen, he was one of the first to equate Tea Party supporters with teabagging. He made reference two times.
The last one quoted was: “It’s hard to talk when you’re tea-bagging.”
It wasn’t heard on a right wing radio show but on CNN, not easily confused with FOX. And, it went viral on liberal blogs afterwards. MSNBC’s favorite attack dog, Olbermann has used the term a few times, along with a few other commentators. After reading an article or commentary, my habit is to try to take some time to read comments and responses from readers. The reactions are a good indication of the mood on either side.
The Constitution refers only to the army and navy but if memory serves, the Air Force was once part of the army, which by any interpretation is allowed under the Constitution. Now, if you are interested in arguing the merits of originalism and textualism to make a point, fine. The constitutionality of the Air Force is much like the unanswered question, “which come first, the chicken or the egg?” How can anyone be expected to give a correct answer since airplanes were not flying around Philadelphia when the Constitution was penned and the advent of air warfare couldn’t be accounted for? Now, if Jeanne Dixon had been there, maybe it would have been addressed. Sucker punch question!
As a Navy brat, I’ll go out on a limb and say, the Air Force IS unconstitutional.
And if we’d listened to the Jeffersonians in the late 90s, we wouldn’t have a Navy, either. They were also opposed to a standing army, as I recall.
“Kathryn just made me think (talk about man bites dog)…”
Bite me, Warthen.
Re: tea baggers–there were several people photographed with tea bags hanging off their hats at early Tea Party rallies. That’s where the connection started–and, of course, boys being boys, they just couldn’t stop sniggering.
If Anderson Cooper, when he says tea-bagging, is specifically referring to a sexual act, then it went right over my head. But a snide comment by Cooper is hardly an orchestrated campaign by the lamestream press. But paranoia and self-victimization delusion are symptoms of tea partyers.
And, as an Air Force brat (I was drafted into the Army in 1973 but it didn’t stick), we’re all in favor of the Navy. We refer to them as “targets.”
My point was that the Constitution is supposed to be a living, working document, powered by the democratic will of the people, not an engraved commandment.
Lastly, the tea partyers would get a lot more mileage out of their protests if they stopped insisting that they are the “real Americans” and the rest of the country aren’t. A nation full of real Americans outvoted them in 2008. Bunch of crybabies.
And in 2010, the crybabies will outvote the “real Americans” of 2008.
Gotta go now. Someone is bugging my phone and counting keystrokes on my keyboard.
People, people, people–Every American citizen is a REAL American. Doesn’t matter what your politics, skin color,birthplace, religion, are–you are a REAL American.
@Kathryn,
Mom, he started it! He said only people who voted for Obama were “real Americans”.
Darn it Mom, you always liked him best anyway! 🙂
Glad you’re still a-commenting, Bart, even if I disagree with you. 😉
I will defend to the death your right to do so!
@Kathryn,
In the words of a popular right wing radio/tv show host, “Kathryn, you’re a Great American”. 🙂 🙂
Yep, I have actually listened to him in the past and found him to be a crashing bore like political pundits on both sides.
I didn’t mean t give that impression. What I was trying to say is that those who voted for Obama are ALSO real Americans.
TV and radio pundits bore me, too. They push limited information around on their plates, but nothing nutritious ever seems to go down. They have been wrong so many times.
I have always wondered just what constitutes a “real American”? Is is citizenship? Is it unwavering support of the Constitution, the flag, Mom, hot dogs, and apple pie? Is it those who stay on the sidelines and never venture into the public eye by actively taking part in protests, etc.? Is it the ones who take to the streets, demonstrating against an injustice? What about the ones who show up at the polls and vote for a single issue candidate? Do you have to agree with a political pundit, left or right, to be a real American?
Or, could it be exactly what we are witnessing being played out before our eyes right now? Maybe it is all of the above and each one is taking part in the process in their own way.
I agree with you Burl, ( 🙁 oh, the shame), everyone who voted is a real American as long as the vote was legal and the voter is a citizen.
As for pundits, I think we should use the wrestling cage to settle it. Place Matthews, Olbermann, and that other lunatic from MSNBC in the cage with Hannity, O’Reilly, and Limbaugh. Make each one wear the appropriate costume, cape, mask, and face paint that reflects their persona. Now, talk about something that would give us all nightmares and scare children!! Who would need Freddie or Jason after that?
Just to straighten this out for y’all, and avoid confusion…
I… am a real American.
There’s that reptile brain in operation again. Bart is perfectly civil and then refers to people he disagrees with as “lunatics.”
Made me wonder. I looked up reptile-brain characteristics and this list is cut’n’pasted directly:
* obsessive-compulsive behavior
* personal day-to-day rituals and superstitious acts
* slavish conformance to old ways of doing things
* ceremonial re-enactments
* obeisance to precedent, as in legal, religious, cultural, and other matters
* responding to partial representations (coloration, “strangeness,” etc.), whether alive or inanimate
and all manner of deception
@Burl,
The specific lunatic I was referring to is Ed Schultz. Otherwise, to one degree or another, they are all lunatics (Matthews, Olbermann, Hannity, Limbaugh, O’Reilly). Schultz is worse than O’Reilly when it comes to bullying and trashing anyone he disagrees with. He goes off the deep end more often than he stays on the pier of sanity.
Otherwise, what is your point?
By the way, thanks for the free analysis! I never knew what was behind my bizarre behavior. I feel much better now.
HSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!
Schultz, yeah. He’s an ex-sportscaster.
I do like Rachel Maddow.